Food not Bombs

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 krikoman 07 Jan 2016
Please sign and share this petition?

If we can drop bombs to kill people why can't we drop food to stop them from starving?

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/117840/sponsors/Vs61890gyH3w9EnkuF...

Cheers.
5
 Sir Chasm 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:
That takes me straight through to the signing, could you link the actual petition?
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Can't yet, need some signatures to get it rolling. I'm new to all this so don't really know how it works
5
In reply to krikoman:

Couldn't we combing both by dropping poisoned food?
5
 atrendall 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Presumably we are trying to kill the people we are dropping bombs on so why would we want to feed them? Fatten them up first?
1
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Couldn't we combing both by dropping poisoned food?

nice that you can make jokes while people are dying.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/residents-besieged-syrian-town...

You'd be the type that's signing petitions to keep out the refugees I suppose, while doing f*ck all to help the innocent people caught up in this.
19
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to atrendall:

> Presumably we are trying to kill the people we are dropping bombs on so why would we want to feed them? Fatten them up first?

Aren't we suppose to be protecting the people of Syria from ISIS?

If the ordinary citizens of Syria die of starvation before we defeat IS then what's the point?
3
 MG 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

You are aware that this is already happening? £1b to various UN agencies and others, for example
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-34636312
1
 MG 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:


> Can't yet, need some signatures to get it rolling. I'm new to all this so don't really know how it works

I'm new to this finance stuff, could you send me signed cheque please? I'll fill in the other details.
2
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to mountainbagger:


Nice one, I'll post the new link when I get it!!

Like I said I'm new to this stuff, so not sure how it works.

Cheers,
For you support so far.
2
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:

> You are aware that this is already happening? £1b to various UN agencies and others, for example


It's not working though is it, if people are still starving to death.

You could have said that about Band-Aid, but what help is that to the people who are dying?
3
 MG 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> It's not working though is it, if people are still starving to death.

Well yes it is working there are millions of people being fed by the UN and others.

Of course no one knows what you are proposing here, perhaps you could explain?
2
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:
> Of course no one knows what you are proposing here, perhaps you could explain?

Ah! Good point, just looked at the petition site, expecting to see all the stuff I'd typed in to be visible!! Like I said new to all this stuff.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/residents-besieged-syrian-town...


It was on ITV news last night, kids being fed water with jam to flavour it, very sad.
Like I said we seem to be able to drop bombs easily enough, why not food.
Post edited at 10:44
2
 elliott92 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

No. We are not. We are suppose to be protecting our nation first and foremost. In order to do that the threat needs to be diminished. After that, we take care of our homeless, veterans, elderly, sick, children and only then, if there's anything left to spare, do we start to think about looking after another nation.

Oh and ignorance isn't an excuse. If you ask me to sign something.. tell me what the hell it's for first please.
9
MarkJH 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> If we can drop bombs to kill people why can't we drop food to stop them from starving?

Is that a genuine question?

If so, there are a number of reasons. At the moment, the western bombing in Syria is exclusively targeting ISIS, who have limited air defences. This is (sort of) tolerated by the Syrian and Russian government because they don't want open conflict with the west and because it is of relatively neutral consequence to the fight that they are involved with (for the moment).

The Syrian government (and allied forces) are using blockades as a strategy to regain rebel held areas, so any attempt to break the blockade would be seen as an overtly hostile act. Given the capability of the Syrian SA-11s and potentially Russian SA-21s, making Syrian airspace safe for large cargo aircraft, would require a sustained bombing campaign (with potentially large casualties on both sides) with little guarantee of success. It would also come with the real possibility of a direct fight between Russia and NATO.

If you are asking for food drops to rebel held enclaves, then you are also asking for a huge amount of extra bombs!
Post edited at 11:00
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to elliott92:

> No. We are not. We are suppose to be protecting our nation first and foremost. In order to do that the threat needs to be diminished. After that, we take care of our homeless, veterans, elderly, sick, children and only then, if there's anything left to spare, do we start to think about looking after another nation.

Vary caring of you, you must be very proud of yourself.

Luckily there are people who do care about others, not just "our nation".

And if you think back we were all for bombing Assad not so long ago.
10
 ianstevens 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Aren't we suppose to be protecting the people of Syria from ISIS?

I think you'll find we're protecting the second homes and luxury lifestyles of those who make bombs.

1
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to MarkJH:

> Is that a genuine question?

> If you are asking for food drops to rebel held enclaves, then you are also asking for a huge amount of extra bombs!

Yes I can see the difficulties, but we manage to overcome any such difficulties to kill people. I'm pretty certain if the same effort was put into feeding them it should be possible.

I'm not naive enough to think this is going to happen, just sick of seeing dying children on our news and jung ho attitudes to killing people.
2
 kestrelspl 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Also, helping people in other nations does help us. It leads to people in that country having a better view of our country and thus being less likely to attack us, and hopefully when this situation sorts itself out, more likely to ally and trade with us. I should stress that I think we should help people in other nations anyway as a matter of common humanity. This specific case is difficult for the logistical reasons highlighted above, but foreign aid really does make sense for both moral and selfish reasons.
 Trangia 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

I think you are confused as to just what the bombing is about. Do you see a direct correlation between the Allied bombing of Daesh and the starvation of the population?

Surely they are two entirely different issues?

What exactly is your petition proposing? Do imagine the Daesh leadership will sit back and happily watch a fleet of C130s lumber over their territory dropping food parcels, because logistically that's the sort of effort that would be needed?
MarkJH 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Yes I can see the difficulties, but we manage to overcome any such difficulties to kill people. I'm pretty certain if the same effort was put into feeding them it should be possible.

There was certainly a window in which we could have gone to war against Assad (what you are asking for) and it was even debated in parliament, but that window is now firmly closed. There is a large possibility that it would kill far more people than it would help, and at worst could lead to WWIII. No responsible world leader would make that decision.

You would have no argument from me that there is a lot more that we could be doing for the Syrians (humanitarian and military), but unfortunately I think that the people of Madaya are beyond our help at the moment.
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> I think you are confused as to just what the bombing is about. Do you see a direct correlation between the Allied bombing of Daesh and the starvation of the population?

No it's Assad that's blockading the town.

> Surely they are two entirely different issues?
Probably but part of the same conflict.

> What exactly is your petition proposing? Do imagine the Daesh leadership will sit back and happily watch a fleet of C130s lumber over their territory dropping food parcels, because logistically that's the sort of effort that would be needed?
Probably nothing (I think I might have f*cked it up already first time and all that!) No I don't think they'll just sit there, and of course it would be a logistics nightmare.

But like I said the logistics can be sorted to bomb people, so why not for dropping food?

Maybe we've become good at dropping bombs and maybe we need more practice as dropping food?
5
MarkJH 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> Do imagine the Daesh leadership will sit back and happily watch a fleet of C130s lumber over their territory dropping food parcels, because logistically that's the sort of effort that would be needed?


I suspect that there would have been a huge navigational cock-up if that happened.

This issue has almost nothing to do with ISIS.

http://syriaundersiege.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/For-web-_REPORT.pdf
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to MarkJH:

> You would have no argument from me that there is a lot more that we could be doing for the Syrians (humanitarian and military), but unfortunately I think that the people of Madaya are beyond our help at the moment.

But only if we choose it to be.

What we seem to be saying to the Syrians is you have to look after yourselves, and don't come here because we don't want you.

And no I wasn't suggesting we go to war against Assad, though our government can't seem to make its mind up; I think according to them we deal with IS first then get him later! Who knows.

2
MarkJH 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:
> What we seem to be saying to the Syrians is you have to look after yourselves, and don't come here because we don't want you.

No; I am saying that there is nothing that we can responsibly do.

> And no I wasn't suggesting we go to war against Assad, though our government can't seem to make its mind up; I think according to them we deal with IS first then get him later! Who knows.

Yes you were. You were asking to directly thwart Assad's tactical aims by supplying blockaded regions. That is most definitely an act of war, and would need to be treated as such by us (unless you were willing to take spectacular risks with the lives of the aircrew).
Post edited at 11:57
1
 galpinos 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Trangia:

> I think you are confused as to just what the bombing is about. Do you see a direct correlation between the Allied bombing of Daesh and the starvation of the population?

No, he sees that we seem to have capability and willingness to bomb in Syria but no appetite to use this capability for more a more humanitarian purpose.

> What exactly is your petition proposing? Do imagine the Daesh leadership will sit back and happily watch a fleet of C130s lumber over their territory dropping food parcels, because logistically that's the sort of effort that would be needed?

It's Assad, not ISIS that are starving the population that has prompted kirkoman to start this petition. Isis are capability, I believe, is limited, so if the plan was to drop food aid to people barricaded into their location by ISIS, it might be possible.

However, as these people are in the situation they are due to Assad and his Russian Allies, dropping food parcels would be problematic as 1) It could be classed as an act of war/aggression/any excuse by the Russians 2) The Syrian and Russian Air Capability is significantly more dangerous than that of ISIS




OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to MarkJH:

> Yes you were. You were asking to directly thwart Assad's tactical aims by supplying blockaded regions. That is most definitely an act of war, and would need to be treated as such by us (unless you were willing to take spectacular risks with the lives of the aircrew).

Oh! FFS!
If we can land a probe on a comet that had to travel 6.4 billion kilometres to get there, then dropping food on a town in Syria should be like hitting a barn door with a shovel.

It's the will that's missing, we are prepared to take risks to kill people why not to save them?

I know I rather lose my life trying to save some one than trying to kill them.
4
 wintertree 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Oh! FFS!

> If we can land a probe on a comet that had to travel 6.4 billion kilometres to get there, then dropping food on a town in Syria should be like hitting a barn door with a shovel.

Are you really that stupid? Assad and the Russians did not have an air defence network on the comet, did they? They also were not going to treat landing on the comet as an act of war against them.

> I know I rather lose my life trying to save some one than trying to kill them.

It's just as well that there are no bad people in this world who need fighting in order to save lives then.

The situation in Syria is appalling, the wider precidents being set by various inactions potentially even more so. They are being set for good - well, sane anyway - reasons. Edit: yes, this sucks, but loosing cargo planes to the Russian air defences is not going to make things better now, is it?
Post edited at 13:03
 WaterMonkey 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:


> I know I rather lose my life trying to save some one than trying to kill them.

The people risking their lives to kill ISIS are trying to save others, is that too difficult to comprehend?

1
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to wintertree:

> Are you really that stupid?

yes, I'm really that stupid
2
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Steve-J-E:

> The people risking their lives to kill ISIS are trying to save others, is that too difficult to comprehend?

No, is it too difficult for you to comprehend that there are more ways to save people than by bombing them?
2
MarkJH 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I know I rather lose my life trying to save some one than trying to kill them.


I don't doubt that, and you are perfectly at liberty to load up a van with food and drive it to Syria. Are you planning to do that? However, you are actually asking other people to lose their lives which is something entirely different whilst at the same time risking a wider war that would kill many more people than you could possibly save.
1
 winhill 07 Jan 2016
In reply to galpinos:

> It's Assad, not ISIS that are starving the population that has prompted kirkoman to start this petition. Isis are capability, I believe, is limited, so if the plan was to drop food aid to people barricaded into their location by ISIS, it might be possible.

I heard in the case of Madaya that it is Hezbollah who have taken the lead, if they don't have the capability to conduct a siege themselves, they have volunteered for the frontline and regard tit for tat action as just part of the process of war.

This is supposedly in response to Western backed anti-government forces (not ISIS) who have done the same elsewhere (there are over a dozen towns besieged by different forces). This situation was what prompted Resolution 2254 to try to stop civilian casualties.

The UN and the ICRC are both trying to get aid into the various towns, with limited success (and obviously via road convoys, not airdrops).

The problem with the petition isn't really anything to do with airdrops, it's just a knee jerk reaction to a TV image without any consideration of the actual situation, fairly normal for these types of petitions.
 SteveSBlake 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

It's not a valid comparison, it's just not that simple.

When we do drop bombs, (not that often it seems) the aircraft are at a very high altitude, beyond the capability of those who would want to, to shoot them down, and they are moving very fast and carry a sophisticated suite of defensive measures, or, are drones...... Overall there is little (relatively) risk to the airmen or aircraft.

However, dropping supplies is done by slow, lumbering transport aircraft that would be obliged to fly very, very, low to ensure the supplies end up with the intended beneficiaries and not ISIS. They would very probably get shot down...

That doesn't lessen the tragedy, but may explain why an 'airdrop' isn't happening.

Steve
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to winhill:

> The problem with the petition isn't really anything to do with airdrops, it's just a knee jerk reaction to a TV image without any consideration of the actual situation, fairly normal for these types of petitions.

The "consideration of the actual situation" is that many innocent people are starving to death.

And while I realise it's not as easy as driving the sandwich van across the border, it doesn't mean there aren't ways of achieving some sort of humanitarian aid to these people.

Just because it's hard doesn't mean we shouldn't try. The fact that it's finally been shown on TV might help some people, the ones who CAN make a difference try a little harder.
3
 Simon4 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> I'm not naive enough to think this is going to happen, just sick of seeing dying children on our news and jung ho attitudes to killing people.

A neat summary of why your style of passive-aggressive virtue signalling never convinces anyone, except possibly to reject what you are proposing (whatever that may be, it is far from clear what you want other than for more emoting).

You seem to suggest that people who take a rather more measured, realistic view of what is possible and proportionate just LOVE seeing pictures of dying children.

They don't, they just see a situation where every intervention, of every kind, is fraught with all kinds of risks and stand every chance of making the situation much worse rather than better. They are also concerned, as you do not seem to be, with protecting our own, advanced, liberal and tolerant societies against being destroyed, not least by waves of violent, entitled, aggressive, sexually rapacious young men from primitive and brutal Islamic tribal areas, see Cologne, Malmo or Paris for details.

The prime duty of the British government is to Britain and British citizens who are loyal to Britain, not to Syria, Lebanon, slum encampments in Calais or Dunkirk or anywhere else. The white man's burden has been firmly laid down, we do not in any case have the resources to take it up again if we wanted to, even were imperialism not an idea thoroughly beyond its sell-by date. Similarly the prime responsibility of the German government is to Germans, the prime responsibility of the Swedish government is to Swedes, it might be a good idea if those governments remembered that fact.

There has also been virtually no sign of "gung-ho attitudes to killing people" in public discourse, there were 2 long, polite, agonised and deeply thoughtful debates in the HOC, one of which rejected the idea of military intervention against the government's wishes, the other gave licence to limited, small-scale and as far as possible highly targeted military intervention (actually there has not been very much action at all since the last vote).

Naive emoting and crying over dead babies on beaches, when the backstory of those babies collapses completely is totally last year,also totally discredited. The emotional blackmail doesn't work anymore, despite the fact that the situation of genuine refugees from Syria (and there are a great many of those) is dreadful enough. Britain, and any other rational Western country, are not going to commit suicide in sympathy with Syrians, because we are more concerned about our own lifeboat.
2
OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to Simon4:

> emotional blackmail doesn't work anymore.

I don't need to be emotionally blackmailed to care about people in distress.
3
MarkJH 07 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> And while I realise it's not as easy as driving the sandwich van across the border, it doesn't mean there aren't ways of achieving some sort of humanitarian aid to these people.

Your argument would carry more weight if you could give an outline of how it could be done. So far, all you have said is that because we have done difficult things in the past, this must be possible. It doesn't logically follow that this is the case.

OP krikoman 07 Jan 2016
In reply to That Shallot:

> TS

Excellent news, looks like my petition has done the trick


Though I'll be happier when I see them eating proper food.
Post edited at 14:53
1
In reply to krikoman:

> Excellent news, looks like my petition has done the trick

> Though I'll be happier when I see them eating proper food.

My thoughts exactly !



TS
afghanidan 07 Jan 2016
In reply to elliott92:

This argument seems to me to be based on the idea that "we" and our responsibilities begin and largely end with our fellow citizens. This is an assumption worth considering.

Its not quite so clear to me why "we" and those we have a responsibility to protect not could be limited to "humans" with as much moral force as you (and others) would draw the limit at "people from our nation". Certainly most major religions don't limit compassion or responsibility for one's fellow man to national boarders, nor secular political ideologies or moral codes (other than nationalism or fascism, sometimes). I appreciate practice often contradicts policy in religion and politics, but, equally those who would care first for Britons often apply stricter limits to those Britons they would help in practice than "internationalists" would.

On the other hand, could I not chose to limit "we" to "members of my immediate family" or "people from my town" with as much reason as you limit "we" to members of "our nation"?

The parties that advocates for an abolition of the aid bill (BNP and UKIP - I'm guessing on BNP and I'm not going to check their manifesto!) get limited support and there's a strong case to argue many (most) people in the UK see "we" and their moral responsibility as not limited to Britain or England. It's certainly up for debate.

There's a moral case for the argument there are limits to those we have a responsibility for but the assumption that the limit is the UK coastline is just that, an assumption.

2
Removed User 07 Jan 2016
In reply to afghanidan:

I wonder if the guy will even consider your very well thought out post. Britain First supporters don't tend to be the most rational thinking or reasonable people..
3
 Ridge 07 Jan 2016
In reply to afghanidan:
Interesting post.

> Certainly most major religions don't limit compassion or responsibility for one's fellow man to national boarders, nor secular political ideologies or moral codes (other than nationalism or fascism, sometimes). I appreciate practice often contradicts policy in religion and politics, but, equally those who would care first for Britons often apply stricter limits to those Britons they would help in practice than "internationalists" would.

Most religions developed as a method of social control or conquest, (as did most nations). One of the major issues in Europe is how to integrate a religion that doesn't recognise national borders, (and in some cases the rights of others ), into a secular society.

> On the other hand, could I not chose to limit "we" to "members of my immediate family" or "people from my town" with as much reason as you limit "we" to members of "our nation"?

That's what everyone does. "Me against my brother, my brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the world". If we were ever in the unfortunate situation of having to save our child or some random stranger I suspect the choice would be obvious.

That isn't to say we should limit our compassion to our own nation, there are sound moral, (and self-interest), grounds to spend money on alleviating poverty overseas. We certainly could be doing more to alleviate the suffering of refugees and those in need abroad.

> There's a moral case for the argument there are limits to those we have a responsibility for but the assumption that the limit is the UK coastline is just that, an assumption.

It's a practical assumption, and it would be pretty perverse to expend the nations wealth alleviating suffering overseas whilst ignoring poverty at home. Unfortunately we can't save everyone, everywhere.
Post edited at 22:10
OP krikoman 08 Jan 2016
In reply to Ridge:

> It's a practical assumption, and it would be pretty perverse to expend the nations wealth alleviating suffering overseas whilst ignoring poverty at home. Unfortunately we can't save everyone, everywhere.

We can't save everyone, that's true. We do seem to have the ability to find money to go to war with them though.

So how do YOU decide who's worth helping?
3
 MG 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:
>
> So how do YOU decide who's worth helping?

How about prioritising the UK, then donating to the UN and similar agencies, which hopefully have a global view which enables them to prioritise and deliver aid effectively, rather than knee-jerk, mad-cap schemes as reactions to the latest newspaper headline?
Post edited at 10:41
In reply to MG: "rather than knee-jerk, mad-cap schemes as reactions to the latest newspaper headline?"

There is a fine line between hyper empathy syndrome and narcissistic behavioural patterns. The OP demonstrates both, an ill conceived petition rushed to post on a climbing forum. Then the red flag of an aggressive outburst to myself who didn't "buy in" to the vision.

I'm sure it's coincidental and Krikoman was just having a bad day
3
 Postmanpat 08 Jan 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I'm sure it's coincidental and Krikoman was just having a bad day

Hmmmmm....

OP krikoman 08 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:

> How about prioritising the UK, then donating to the UN and similar agencies

Why do you think prioritising the UK is more important?

And while the UN is great and does good work it's rather slow to act sometimes.

What about Live -Aid was that all a waste of time, or were peoples' suffering eased?

Shouldn't we give help based on who needs it most?


3
OP krikoman 08 Jan 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "rather than knee-jerk, mad-cap schemes as reactions to the latest newspaper headline?"

> There is a fine line between hyper empathy syndrome and narcissistic behavioural patterns.

Or not giving a f*ck and being and arsehole.

If you knew me I don't think you'd think I'm a narcissist, but there again, you can make judgements on people without knowing them at all, right?

It seems to be very popular to try and do down people who are trying to do good in the world, I don't really count myself amongst these people. But how about thinking for a minute about how difficult it is already to help people and why you think they shouldn't bother or more to the point are deluded idiots. Maybe a little inward looking would do you good!
4
 MG 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Why do you think prioritising the UK is more important?

Umm, because it is our country and we live here and pay taxes here, obviously.

> Shouldn't we give help based on who needs it most?

Global socialism? Maybe if we were all robots but we aren't and that approach doesn't work. Would you prioritise someone suffering in Syria (or wherever) over your own family?

1
In reply to krikoman:

"you can make judgements on people without knowing them at all, right?"

I refer you to your own post to me at 10.02 yesterday

"You'd be the type that's signing petitions to keep out the refugees I suppose, while doing f*ck all to help the innocent people caught up in this."

That's a judgement! I made an observation and even caveated it as probably coincidental.
1
 MG 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:


> It seems to be very popular to try and do down people who are trying to do good in the world,

I think it's more doing down those who jump up and down a lot saying "look at me, look at me, look at me, aren't I doing good!!", when they aren't, really.
1
 Ridge 08 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:

> How about prioritising the UK, then donating to the UN and similar agencies, which hopefully have a global view which enables them to prioritise and deliver aid effectively, rather than knee-jerk, mad-cap schemes as reactions to the latest newspaper headline?

In reply to krikoman:

Pretty much the above. Obviously there's a sliding scale, I wouldn't prioritise handing out free IPhones to the poor in the UK over providing water to a village in Africa for instance.

However it would be ridiculous to tell a pensioner in the UK, who has contibuted to the nation for their entire working life, that they can't have a life changing operation or any heating in the winter because there's been a programme on the telly about lepers in Outer Mongolia and Benedict Cumberbatch thinks the money should go there.

1
OP krikoman 08 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:
> How about prioritising the UK, then donating to the UN and similar agencies, which hopefully have a global view which enables them to prioritise and deliver aid effectively, rather than knee-jerk, mad-cap schemes as reactions to the latest newspaper headline?

What about the people who fall through the cracks of the UN and similar agencies? Do we just forget about them.


And what would you have said to this little girl had you been her father ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18559066

Would you have said, "no dear you should leave it to the UN" or "WHAT!!! when there's people over here who need stuff!!"

And was she being "Hyper Empathetic" or did she just care for her fellow human beings.
Post edited at 21:03
4
OP krikoman 08 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:

> Umm, because it is our country and we live here and pay taxes here, obviously.

> Global socialism? Maybe if we were all robots but we aren't and that approach doesn't work. Would you prioritise someone suffering in Syria (or wherever) over your own family?

Can you tell me what paying taxes has to do with giving to charity, or indeed being charitable?
This is not the first time this has come up in conversations with people.

From today on Facebook an old friend I used to know 20 years ago.
She was a nice enough girl if somewhat thick, but she was good fun and nice to be around.
She's now a big fan of cats and Britain First and doesn't seem to understand that her friends in Turkey are probably Muslims but she think all Muslims are murderers.

Me:
Here's a petition to sign, I need five email addresses before it goes "live"

Her:
Why should we help them? Why dont they do it themselves?

Me:
Does it matter if children are dying of starvation, who helps them?

Her:
Why should we be the ones to help them though. We've got enough problems here.

Me:
You're not starving to death are you? FFS what's happened to you?

Her:
I pay taxes here, why should we help them. They'll only grown up into people who'll try and kill you anyhow.

Me:
That's really very sad, there aren't many of our children eat grass and leaves because they are starving, what's the difference between a child and a dog or a cat you seem to think these are worth saving.


I your helping others depends upon where you pay your taxes, what do you do if you emigrate? ask for a refund?
9
 MG 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

You really don't get the ideas of priorities and efficiencies do you? No, unfortunately we can't help everyone, nor are we responsible for everyone.
 MG 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:
Do drop the "look at me aren't I wonderful routine" its rather childish.

Taxes are relevant because they bind us together in a community. Other countries have prime responsibility for their citizens.

(Was your petition to force people to be more charitable, or to get the government to spend (tax) money?)
Post edited at 22:32
 Ridge 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

> Can you tell me what paying taxes has to do with giving to charity, or indeed being charitable?

This isn't about being charitable, it's about allocating a finite amount of taxpayers money. You could burn through the UK's entire GDP every year and still not save everyone. You might get a rosy glow out of doing that, but the people paying for it might not. By all means sell all your possessions, load up a van and go on a charitable humanitarian suicide mission to Syria. I'd be gobsmacked and awestruck by your heroism, but I won't be joining you. That's the difference between you deciding what to do with your life (charity), and deciding what to do with everyone else's, (paying taxes).





In reply to krikoman:


> From today on Facebook an old friend I used to know 20 years ago.

> She was a nice enough girl if somewhat thick, but she was good fun and nice to be around.

nice


> Me:

> You're not starving to death are you? FFS what's happened to you?

> Her:

> I pay taxes here, why should we help them. They'll only grown up into people who'll try and kill you anyhow.

> Me:

> That's really very sad, there aren't many of our children eat grass and leaves because they are starving, what's the difference between a child and a dog or a cat you seem to think these are worth saving.


you got in touch with someone you knew 20 years ago, that you have a degree of contempt for, and ended up swearing at them because they wouldn't sign your petition?

do you really think it is a good idea to tell us this?

 Ridge 08 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

Take this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/07/calais-french-migrant-...

Horrible conditions, and I really feel for the children. However a, (admittedly less than perfect), system for claiming asylum is in place, all the parents need to do is register like hundreds of thousands of others have done. However the parents prefer to use the plight of their children to blackmail the UK into accepting them. France is where they are, France is as wealthy as the UK, has better social services in some respects, yet Ms Cooper thinks we should be providing for them.

If you want scabies, bronchitis and homeless people living in squalor then there are several hundred thousand living like that here in the UK, just as there were when Labour was in power. The only difference is they're not intentionally in that position. Letting 5,000 people, (plus dependents that will soon appear), jump to the top of the queue and deprive the existing needy, (not to mention a million refugees trying to abide by the law), even more just doesn't seem fair to me.

In answer to your question:

> Why do you think prioritising the UK is more important?

Because the people within the UK are part of our society, are in need of our help and are our responsibility. Do you not think that prioritising people who are not our responsibilty over them might damage social cohesion just a teeny bit?

Maybe the question should be why do you think we should prioritise everyone else over the UK?
 Ridge 08 Jan 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> you got in touch with someone you knew 20 years ago, that you have a degree of contempt for, and ended up swearing at them because they wouldn't sign your petition?

> do you really think it is a good idea to tell us this?

Or there are strawmen on Facebook now.
 Timmd 09 Jan 2016
In reply to MG:

> Do drop the "look at me aren't I wonderful routine" its rather childish.

I think that's a bit harsh.
4
 Andy Morley 09 Jan 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I think that's a bit harsh.

I think you're right. MG is being extremely ungrateful. Krikoman is actually providing a useful social service in giving MG and others like him something to complain about. Were it not for kindly souls like Krikoman, MG would be forced to spend all his time watching paint dry.
3
 atrendall 09 Jan 2016
In reply to Andy Morley:

The wet paint option sounds good to me.
OP krikoman 10 Jan 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

> nice

> you got in touch with someone you knew 20 years ago, that you have a degree of contempt for, and ended up swearing at them because they wouldn't sign your petition?

> do you really think it is a good idea to tell us this?

I'm presuming you know how Facebook works, if you're friends with someone they see your posts and you theirs, we were close friends from about the ages of 16 to 25 then I moved away and we lost touch; we've been Facebook friends for about 3 years.
I posted she replied.
I wasn't being disingenuous then I called her a bit thick, she'd call herself the same, so don't think I was being nasty; just honest and nothing I wouldn't say in front of her.

As for swearing she can swear better than I do and swearing, providing it's between adults and not in earshot of children doesn't offend me or her.

So your indignation is miss placed I'm afraid.

Still even so it's much more important what I said, than the real issue of starving kids thanks for pointing that out.
2
OP krikoman 10 Jan 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I think that's a bit harsh.

Thanks for the support, I'm not Jesus nor do I want to be. I'm an ordinary bloke with kids who is angry at seeing more starving people caused by war and feeling powerless to help.

I realise the internet is hard to gauge the nuances of speech from reading text and sometimes what you hear in your head is something totally different from what's actually being said, but I'm pretty sure most people attacking me on here didn't really care what I was saying.

No one answered any of the questions I asked, like how they'd feel about the Mary's Meals girl.

So I came to the conclusion they were just trolling anyhow.

I am a bit taken aback by the ferocity of peoples feelings though, not just on here and it isn't the first time I heard people being attacked for what to all intents and purposes is a desire to help.

It might be futile and miss place hope but don't a lot of good things come from knowing that but trying anyway.

There's either an attitude of it's too hard, or you're wasting your time, which is fine but then there's an anger directed at people who are trying, however mundane it might be, for even trying. It's like people railing against crap on the TV instead of changing the channel or turning it off.

There also seems to be the idea that because you pay taxes, you're absolved from caring, I don't understand this thinking. I pretty sure that if these starving people were outside the front door of the people complaining here, they'd do something about their situation. So why does the distance make it not worth trying?

Oh and by the way here's a better petition to sign, someone beat me to the one I was trying to set up.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/madaya_starvation_siege_loc/?bBDUrbb&v=7124...

And for those that don't like this idea, DON'T click the link

Cheers,

Mark
3
In reply to krikoman:
Mark, do you ever wonder if you might be as bad at judging what your "friend's" reactions are likely to be as you are at judging people's responses on here?

Its just that if you were really to show her the full content of the post you made- the one where you label her as a thick borderline racist cat fanatic- i doubt that she'd be as relaxed as you appear to be.

It's one thing trading banter. It's quite another thing quoting a conversation verbatim to illustrate the what you perceive as the moral failings of those that don't agree with you, without informing the person quoted theyre being used in this way, and with a bit of personal abuse stirred into the mix.

Many people would find that a little distasteful, to be honest. And think such disregard for decency in relation to someone you actually know sits uneasily with your claims to care so much for people you don't.

I promise you that I'm not indignant- more puzzled that you seem unaware of the picture this is painting of you.

I'd be amazed if your 'friend' wasn't indignant if you were to show her your post from Friday night though.

As to the negative reaction you get on here- I can't speak for others, but my guess is that its not the message, but the messenger that people have a problem with. Perhaps if you toned down the sanctimony, you might persuade a few more people to sign the petitions.

Cheers
Gregor

Edit: and this is from someone largely supportive of the substance of your message.
Post edited at 22:51
OP krikoman 11 Jan 2016
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Thanks for that, as a experiment I did show her; her reply "your (sic) a cheeky cnut . See ya next week for Deb's birthday?"

So although you're right I I might be bad at judging people's responses on here, I think I know my friend better than you seem to think I do.


Glad you were on the whole largely supportive.
Post edited at 09:40
5
 Baron Weasel 11 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

I'm disgusted at all the dislikes people have given you on this thread for showing basic morals about innocent people starving to death. I guess they are the same people who dislike refugees, but are too stupid to realise that foreign aid is essential to preventing refugee situations like we have now.
4
 Baron Weasel 11 Jan 2016
In reply to krikoman:

For the dislikers, remember that spending on foreign aid is a drop in the ocean compared to corporate tax avoidance!
5
 MG 11 Jan 2016
In reply to Baron Weasel:

> I'm disgusted at all the dislikes people have given you on this thread for showing basic morals about innocent people starving to death.

I'd be surprised if any of the dislikes were for that reason.

I guess they are the same people who dislike refugees, but are too stupid to realise that foreign aid is essential to preventing refugee situations like we have now.

You think a larger aid budget would have significantly reduced the number of Syrian (for example) refugees?

OP krikoman 11 Jan 2016
In reply to Baron Weasel:

Cheers!
3
In reply to krikoman:

Fair enough, you've obviously got very understanding friends...!

Aid convey reported to be on way to Madaya so hopefully a change for the better is on the way

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...